Blue Bombers Forum
February 01, 2023, 02:34:39 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will the CFL survive in it's current form?
yes - 16 (53.3%)
no - 9 (30%)
Maybe - 5 (16.7%)
Total Voters: 30

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Will the CFL survive in it's current form?  (Read 18589 times)
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8995



« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2020, 12:27:57 AM »

U of M doesnt do anything. Oh sure maybe some research.  Doesn't do anything for the profile of Winnioeg.m what is it, second worst university  in themWorld according to McCleans?.


Another one of your gem comments
Logged

Back2Back Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
blue_gold_84
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 29925


For The W


« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2020, 01:35:10 AM »

Another one of your gem comments

LOL

"Maybe some research." Cheesy
Logged

#forthew

Slava Ukraini!
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28836


« Reply #62 on: September 09, 2020, 03:23:38 PM »

Has anyone heard of any discussions on a go forward plan for 2021? My question is not about the Covid impact but a possible new business model and what that would mean.

I'd hope both sides are considering what needs to be done and what it takes to make it work.. Time flies.
Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8995



« Reply #63 on: September 09, 2020, 04:37:28 PM »

Has anyone heard of any discussions on a go forward plan for 2021? My question is not about the Covid impact but a possible new business model and what that would mean.

I'd hope both sides are considering what needs to be done and what it takes to make it work.. Time flies.

Crickets from the CFL
Logged

Back2Back Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
Sec227
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 338


« Reply #64 on: September 10, 2020, 01:00:00 PM »

Maybe it's a wait and see how the NFL does first. We know the CFL cant survive without fans VS the monster TV contract of the NFL. Even then, I keep reading that their Cap, the NFL's, is going to be flat next few years. No fans in stands, Way less money.
Logged
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28836


« Reply #65 on: September 10, 2020, 01:25:07 PM »

Maybe it's a wait and see how the NFL does first. We know the CFL cant survive without fans VS the monster TV contract of the NFL. Even then, I keep reading that their Cap, the NFL's, is going to be flat next few years. No fans in stands, Way less money.

That's a Plan B question which they need to taken into account. My question was more about Plan A questions. I will be watching NFL non bubble format to see what happens from a safety point of view. Some teams will have fans initially and that may change up or down.

1. Is the financial business plan viable or does the SMS need to be adjusted.
2. Does that impact the roster size with a reduction in the AR.
3. What results from either 1 or 2 in regard to ratio.

Plan B is not being able to have fans in the stands for some or all of 2021 season. Can they make it work with other financing and / or covid solutions?

I've made earlier suggestions of what changes might be possible / feasible for Plan A. However, this was based on comments about league financial problems. Whether those are accurate only the league knows the extent for sure.

In a perfect world I'd like an increase in roster size and more money for players.  Pretty sure that is off the table.

I haven't seen too many ideas yet of what posters think might need to change except for broad stokes.

« Last Edit: September 10, 2020, 01:27:40 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4626


« Reply #66 on: September 10, 2020, 03:35:50 PM »

Based on the recent comments from Bob Young, Jim Hopson in 3down articles, and past comments from Braley and others, there is no clear consensus among the owners upon a different business model.  Don't expect to hear anything right away, they have a lot of work to figure this out.

In the meantime, here is my take on it:

1.  While we may see a reduction in roster sizes, there is little room to shrink the salary cap by any sizeable amount.  Arguments can be made for better distribution of earnings within the current cap, but such a small percentage of league revenues go to player already, large reductions really mean it would cease to be a professional league. 

2.  Revenue sharing has to be part of the new model, but with that comes a higher level of transparency. 

3.  The league has to maintain its recent cap on football operations staff, but now has to extend that to other departments.  The team presidents, VPs, marketing people, front office all have to tighten their belts.  I would argue this is the cost center that has grown exponentially over the past 25 years.

4.  The league needs to stay the course on Global players, and try to link this to new streaming services.  Global players will mean global fans, and they aren't coming to games, but they might subscribe to an internet feed to watch Panzer Boi blow people up. This also opens new avenues of sponsorship. 

5.  The league needs to monetize some kind of gaming platform, to allow sports betting that they get a piece of.  This is NOT vlts are the stadium, we are talking about football betting.  This could be substantial new revenue.

6.  All this will help reduce some costs and provide new revenue streams, and reduce reliance on gate revenues.  But at the end of the day, they have to find a way to get each team in the neighbourhood of 19k to 20k attendance.
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28836


« Reply #67 on: September 10, 2020, 04:20:24 PM »

If there is a roster size reduction ( I had proposed 42 AR instead of 46 ) + global players inside the SMS, not outside the SMS. That could result in a direct offsetting reduction to the SMS. I had only suggested a 10% reduction to the SMS even if the AR remains at 46 players.

Adding a 2nd Global player eliminates 1 Canadian from the roster whether it stays at 46 or not. That defeats the Canadian ratio content expectation previously held. It's just a way of adding 2 more DI's IMO.

As much as I liked Hansen he was the exception not the rule. Adding a 2nd player and additional PR players just adds cost. At the moment it's a long term plan and not a luxury we can currently have if the financial issues are true.

I'm not expecting any responses soon but would like to hear they are in discussions. Could be a bitter series of talks.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2020, 04:32:56 PM by Blue In BC » Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
GCn19
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25504


« Reply #68 on: September 10, 2020, 06:32:30 PM »

Based on the recent comments from Bob Young, Jim Hopson in 3down articles, and past comments from Braley and others, there is no clear consensus among the owners upon a different business model.  Don't expect to hear anything right away, they have a lot of work to figure this out.

In the meantime, here is my take on it:

1.  While we may see a reduction in roster sizes, there is little room to shrink the salary cap by any sizeable amount.  Arguments can be made for better distribution of earnings within the current cap, but such a small percentage of league revenues go to player already, large reductions really mean it would cease to be a professional league. 

2.  Revenue sharing has to be part of the new model, but with that comes a higher level of transparency. 

3.  The league has to maintain its recent cap on football operations staff, but now has to extend that to other departments.  The team presidents, VPs, marketing people, front office all have to tighten their belts.  I would argue this is the cost center that has grown exponentially over the past 25 years.

4.  The league needs to stay the course on Global players, and try to link this to new streaming services.  Global players will mean global fans, and they aren't coming to games, but they might subscribe to an internet feed to watch Panzer Boi blow people up. This also opens new avenues of sponsorship. 

5.  The league needs to monetize some kind of gaming platform, to allow sports betting that they get a piece of.  This is NOT vlts are the stadium, we are talking about football betting.  This could be substantial new revenue.

6.  All this will help reduce some costs and provide new revenue streams, and reduce reliance on gate revenues.  But at the end of the day, they have to find a way to get each team in the neighbourhood of 19k to 20k attendance.

Speaking to point 3, take a look at the Riders revenues compared to most of the teams in the league, and they managed to lose money last year before Covid. They were spending huge money outside of football operations.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
the paw
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 4626


« Reply #69 on: September 11, 2020, 12:31:50 AM »

Speaking to point 3, take a look at the Riders revenues compared to most of the teams in the league, and they managed to lose money last year before Covid. They were spending huge money outside of football operations.

Its a little deceiving.  Their loss was nominal, if not for the Alouettes bailout, they would have been in the black.

They do have much higher non-operations expenses, but those are inflated by the COGS related to March sales.  They net about $500k on $6 million in merch sales, which is a lousy margin but great promotion. 

I think if you cut their merch revenues and expenses back to where the rest of the league is (say $1 mill) their financial profile is very similar to the bombers.
Logged

grab grass 'n growl
GCn19
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25504


« Reply #70 on: September 11, 2020, 11:07:27 AM »

Its a little deceiving.  Their loss was nominal, if not for the Alouettes bailout, they would have been in the black.

They do have much higher non-operations expenses, but those are inflated by the COGS related to March sales.  They net about $500k on $6 million in merch sales, which is a lousy margin but great promotion. 

I think if you cut their merch revenues and expenses back to where the rest of the league is (say $1 mill) their financial profile is very similar to the bombers.

Perhaps, but at the end of the day they spend a ton on promotion and non-football operation no matter how it's sliced. Whether its blowing out merch for pennies on the dollar to keep every yokel in a Brendan Labatte jersey or not, it's a big slice of pie that has to be factored in.
Logged

Some people take this forum way too seriously.
blue_or_die
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 8995



« Reply #71 on: September 12, 2020, 12:41:46 PM »

What I'd like to see them do is finally figure out a way to get all or most of the games on the primary ESPN network. Work out a deal with TSN as a partner to give rebroadcasting rights to ESPN for pennies for the first 3 years and use that period to get a critical mass of American fans consistently watching, and use this to leverage a future contract that is fair and provides a significant new revenue stream and also rewards TSN for playing along. That massive, football-hungry US market is where it's at. ESPN doesn't have NFL TV rights, and Americans don't have good football to watch before September.

No doubt I'm oversimplifying and myself nor anyone else on this board knows the ins and outs of broadcast rights and negotiations, but I think that's the golden goose to getting new revenue aside from trying to get butts in the seats, which, today, isn't even possible.
Logged

Back2Back Grey Cup champs and WE ARE LIT
Blue In BC
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 28836


« Reply #72 on: September 12, 2020, 03:03:32 PM »

What I'd like to see them do is finally figure out a way to get all or most of the games on the primary ESPN network. Work out a deal with TSN as a partner to give rebroadcasting rights to ESPN for pennies for the first 3 years and use that period to get a critical mass of American fans consistently watching, and use this to leverage a future contract that is fair and provides a significant new revenue stream and also rewards TSN for playing along. That massive, football-hungry US market is where it's at. ESPN doesn't have NFL TV rights, and Americans don't have good football to watch before September.

No doubt I'm oversimplifying and myself nor anyone else on this board knows the ins and outs of broadcast rights and negotiations, but I think that's the golden goose to getting new revenue aside from trying to get butts in the seats, which, today, isn't even possible.

An interesting idea.
Logged

2019 Grey Cup Champions
Stretch
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1865


« Reply #73 on: September 12, 2020, 04:14:01 PM »

. ESPN doesn't have NFL TV rights

Not totally true because they have Monday Night Football. However I agree with Blue In BC that your idea is interesting.
Logged

Money is no object...especially when you have none.
Sir Blue and Gold
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 23168



« Reply #74 on: September 15, 2020, 01:43:30 PM »

An interesting idea.

It's not realistic nor the issue. The reason the CFL isn't on ESPN's primary network is not because the CFL wants too much money for the property. In those negotiations, ESPN has all leverage. They have the eyes. They have the audience. The problem is their audience doesn't want to watch the CFL. Networks want people watching so they can charge more to advertisers. That's why sports rights are valuable and why they pay a ton of money to obtain them. If ESPN goes with the CFL over college football on Saturday and whatever other sports they have on Thursday or Friday they're going to miss out on buckets of dollars as the eyes go elsewhere.

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!